Aquatic macroinvertebrate inventory & assessment of springs and seeps within Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area (BICA)

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Inventory & Assessment of

Springs and Seeps within Bighorn Canyon National

Recreation Area (BICA)

Prepared for the:
Western National Parks Association and the Greater Yellowstone Network
Inventory & Monitoring Program, National Park Service

Layout Creek Spring looking downstream

By:
David M. Stagliano
Aquatic Ecologist
March 2008

i MONTANA

Natural Heritage
Program

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 1 of 18

Stagliano

Table of Contents

Introduction 3

Methods 4

Macroinvertebrate Collection 4

Macroinvertebrate Analysis 5

Spring Habitat Classification 5

Results 6

Spring Habitat Evaluation 6

Macroinvertebrate Communities 9

Discussion 12

Conclusions and Recommendations 13

Literature Cited 14

Appendix A. Macroinvertebrate Species List for all BICA samples.

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this survey and analysis was provided by a grant from the Western National
Parks Association facilitated by Elizabeth Crowe and Brenda Acker, Research Coordinator. We
especially want to thank Denine Schmitz for logistical support, field assistance, maps, water-quality
data and sampling permit assistance, we could not have accomplished so much without her help.
We would like to thank Cass Bromley, the BICA ecologist for logistical support, and Darrell Cook,
BICA park superintendent for his endorsement to allow us to proceed with this project. I
additionally want to thank Dr. Robert Wisseman and Brady Richards (taxonomic guru's) who
verified beetle and caddisfly identifications. Fieldwork was assisted by Linda Vance (MTNHP).

All photos in the report were taken by MTNHP personnel, unless otherwise noted

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 2 of 18

Stagliano

INTRODUCTION

Spring ecosystems in arid regions are oftentimes the only permanent water source in the uplands
and provide essential habitat for a myriad of aquatic and terrestrial organisms (Erman 2002); they
are essentially aquatic islands in a sea of desert (Thompson et al 2002). Riparian areas adjacent to
springs can provide habitat to up to 75% of the available species diversity in arid regions (Shepard
1993). Spring ecosystems have evolved within a narrow set of environmental conditions strictly
dependent on groundwater discharge (Shepard 1993). Discharge of springs within Bighorn
Canyon National Recreation Area (BICA) has been found to be dependent on snowmelt-based
groundwater reaching outflows as recently as weeks after melting, to as long as years after (D.
Schmitz, pers. comm.). The mosaic of microhabitats in springs is largely due to stable, long-term
flow rates (Perla & Stevens 2003), and perennial discharge has been linked to diverse, unique and
often endemic flora and fauna (Myers 1995, Sada and Vinyard 2002). Aquatic macroinvertebrates
can make up a substantial proportion of spring biodiversity. Aquatic species in spring ecosystems
can display a high degree of endemism, often evolving to subtle cues in water chemistry (Arsufi
1993, Heino et al. 2003; Sada et al. 2005). Macroinvertebrate populations in springs of the Great
Basin, Sierra Nevada, and Colorado Plateau are known to support endemic aquatic
macroinvertebrates (Erman 2002; Hershler and Sada 2002; Sada and Herbst 2001). An initial
survey of Great Basin Springs reported four new species of aquatic invertebrates (Myers 1995). A
new species of the springsnail, Pyrgalopsis (the only species reported east of the continental
divide) has recently been found in a Missouri River (Montana) spring (Hershler and Gustafson
2002). Even though most spring locations in BICA have been documented on USGS topographic
maps, there has been no documentation of aquatic fauna occurring within these ecosystems.

Figure 1. Overview location of Bighorn Canyon National
Recreation Area (reprinted from Baum and Peterson 2001).

^1

YrtllnwljiHOim

Spring flora and fauna in BICA
have only been investigated for the
occurrence of rare riparian and
wetland plants (ex. Sullivantia
hapemanii var. hapemanii) (Heidel
and Fertig 2000).

Therefore, a survey of spring fauna
will substantially increase the
known BICA species and document
potentially rare, endemic or
endangered species. Surveys in this
area will fill data gaps, serve as a
reference point for change
detection, provide a baseline
necessary for evaluating the rarity
of different spring ecosystem types,
and form an understanding of
biological diversity and integrity at the local and ecoregional level. Many spring species have
narrow environmental ranges (specialists) and therefore are susceptible to changes in water
chemistry and habitat quality.

Our main objectives for this study include 1) an initial aquatic invertebrate faunal survey and
bioassessment of targeted perennial BICA springs, 2) determining the environmental factors that
determine biointegrity of the aquatic macroinvertebrate communities spring ecosystem, and 3)

•i r-i- !■ ni L«nd«

USPS NATIONAL FOREST

BIGHORN CANYON NATIONAL RECREATED AREA
| USFS ESTABLISHED WILDERNESS AREA

| YELLQWIAJL WILDl IFE HABITAT MANAGEMENT AREA
CROA'ihDljWjRFSefiWATON

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 3 of 18

Stagliano

provide a sampling scheme and identify indicator measures (species richness, abundance, target
species (i.e. endemics), etc.) with which to monitor spring diversity and biointegrity in the future.
Achieving our objectives, especially the third, will allow park managers to monitor the status and
changes of aquatic macroinvertebrate indicators over time within BICA springs. This process can
be repeated every five years for any proposed spring-type monitoring protocol: an impaired (cattle
or human impacted) sample and a reference (pristine) condition sample from each spring type.

Macroinvertebrate Collection & Analysis

We collected macroinvertebrate samples and habitat data May 19-22, 2007 from 21 priority BICA
spring & seep sites (D. Schmitz, pers. comm.). Protocols dictated sampling for macroinvertebrates
within 100m of origination of the spring, and this distance was usually much shorter (~0-25m from

the orifice), especially for wall seeps.
Additionally, we collected samples from the
run-out channels of 5 springs where changing
water & habitat conditions can lead to different
invertebrate assemblages (Bear Spring, Layout
Creek, Picket's Wall and Lockhart
Springhouse { 2 } ) . Sampling methodology was
site-specific, and largely dependent on the
length and magnitude of the spring flow.
Semi-quantitative field sampling protocols
employed a minimum of 10 randomized 0.5m
jabs or kicks allocated to all habitats within a
spring reach using a standard 500 micron D-
frame net or in shallow, low flow situations, an
aquarium net. All substrates were disturbed and washed into the net (Photo 1, taken by D. Sasse).
The contents of the ten individual samples were placed in a 40L bucket, washed and elutriated
allowing mineral matter to remain on the bottom of the bucket, while inverts and organic materials
are collected onto a 500 micron sieve, and placed in a 1L Nalgene container filled with 95%
Ethanol (ETOH) for preservation. The mineral portion on the bottom of the bucket was scanned for
caddisfly cases, snail or clam shells before returning it to the spring. For spring reaches at least

40m long and at least 10cm in depth a

Table 1. Impairment determinations from MMI and O/E
(RIVPACS) models (from Jessup 2005, Feldman 2006).

Ecoregion

Mountain

Low Valley

Eastern Plains

RIVPACS

>0.8 or < 1.2
<0.8 or > 1.2

>0.8 or < 1.2
<0.8 or > 1.2

>0.8 or < 1.2
<0.8 or > 1.2

>63
<63

>48
<48

>37
<37

Impairment Determination

Not impaired
Impaired

Not impaired
Impaired

Not impaired
Impaired

reach- wide composite type sample
(EMAP reach- wide 10 transect protocol,
Lazorchak et al. 1998) was used. Since
EMAP protocols call for equal spacing of
samples in the reach, this sampling can
be more easily replicated for monitoring
capabilities. The samples were processed
(sorting, identification, and data analysis)
by the author in Helena following MT
Department of Environmental Quality's
protocols (MT DEQ 2005).

Macroinvertebrates were enumerated & identified to the lowest taxonomic level using a 4-40x
Stereo-zoom Microscope, imported into an Access-based ED AS database, and multimetric
macroinvertebrate (MMI) metrics were calculated from the data (Jessup et al. 2005, Feldman
2006). Metric results were then scored using the MT DEQ criteria and each sample categorized as

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 4 of 18

Stagliano

non-impaired or impaired according to specific threshold values (Table 1). Most BICA spring sites
are categorized as Low Mountain/Valley (LVAL) and rated accordingly, although we did run an
alternate MMI, as mountain or prairie for a QC check. The impairment threshold set by MT DEQ
for the LVAL Index is 48, thus any score above this threshold are considered unimpaired. The
MMI score is based on metrics that measure attributes of benthic macroinvertebrate communities
that change in response to stream condition changes (anthropogenically caused). Expected
reference condition indicator species for perennial spring macroinvertebrate communities were
derived from springs in the Northwestern Great Plains (NWGP)(Stagliano et al. 2006).

Spring Habitat Classification

The landscape surrounding the springs of the BICA is typical of the Pryor-Big Horn Foothills /
Wyoming Basin ecoregion (Woods et al. 2002). Twenty-one springs identified as Wyoming Basin
Perennial Spring Aquatic Ecological System Types (AES S005) were visited (Figure 2). All
springs are initially classified into 2 types: Limnocrenes — non-linear flowing springs, lentic spring
ecosystems that resemble small wetlands (WPSS-Wetland /Ponded Seep Springs), and
Rheocrenes - flowing water springs that may flow into perennial or ephemeral streams or may
disappear into the ground some distance from their source (Table 2 & 3). Headgate Seep and
Pentagon Spring were included into the WPPS classification because of their wetland seepage
characteristics, but had some degree of directional flow. Secondarily, Rheocrenes can be separated
into dispersed wall spring seeps, a.k.a. hanging gardens (LVWS-Low, MVWS-Med or High
Volume Wall Springs & Seeps) or linear flowing channelized springs (STCS-Single Thread
Channel Springs) (Figure 2, Table 2). A rare form of hanging garden within BICA is the Karst

wall rheocrene (photo left). Karst hanging gardens are
assemblages of aquatic and semi-aquatic plants, including
the sensitive Sullivantia hapemanii, and animals occurring
at seeps on calcareous (limestone) canyon walls.

Spring Habitat Evaluations. Overall, 6 of the 2 1
spring sites ranked good-excellent and 8 had fair habitat
quality assessed by EPA's field RBP protocols (Table 2).
Five sites were ranked slightly impaired, and 2 moderately
to severely impaired. Highest site habitat scores were
MVWS, LVWS wall seeps and STCS increasing in distance
from previously occupied areas. Highest deductions to the
riparian assessment scores were in-stream sediment, bare
ground and bank trampling by cattle intrusions into the
riparian zone. These intrusions were specifically noticeable
and had very high impacts at North Davis and Lockhart
Stockpond Springs. Human impacts on springs at historic
ranches (intended or inadvertent) have resulted in many of
the impairments seen at BICA springs, including the occurrence of non-native species. Rorippa
nasturtium (watercress) is an obvious example of an introduced plant species occurring at 9 of 21
spring sites (personal observation), most of these sites are within the Hillsboro, Lockhart or Ewing-
Snell Ranch areas or are adjacent to roadways.

Pickett's Wall, a Karst wall rheocrene

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 5 of 18

Stagliano

Table 2. Spring Station information. Spring classes (LVWS, MVWS, STCS, WPSS) are assigned and
described in the text. HHR=Habitat Health rank by riparian/stream evaluations (++) good-excellent,
(+) fair-good, (-) poor, (--) degraded. C=conductivity in us/sec, T=temp °C, Q=flow in liters/sec.

Station ID

Station Name

SPR#

Spring
Class

UTM83
X

UTM83
Y

HHR

PH

C

Temp

Q
L/s

B_BEARSPR_run

Bear Spring run

22

WPSS

717270

5002620

+

7.12

na

14.0

na

B_BEARSPR1

Bear Spring

22

WPSS

717270

5002620

-

7.10

na

12.0

na

B_CASS_SPR1

Cass Spring

33

STCS

716094

4999499

++

7.14

182

10.0

6.800

B_CATTRKSPR1

Cattrack Spring

13

STCS

717230

4998805

+

7.11

2004

11.3

0.078

B_FINLEYSPR1

Finley Spring nr

29

STCS

45.1158

108.2106

++

6.97

1867

10.8

0.215

B_HDGTSEEP1

Barry s Landing
Headgate Seep

24

WPSS

713576

4996931

+

7.27

399

13.1

na

B_HIDDENSPR1

Hidden Spring

STCS

718192

4998344

++

6.88

1367

11.6

9.000

B_HLSBMNSPR1

Hillsboro Main

7

MVWS

717144

4997926

++

7.20

578

10.2

9.883

B_HLSBSDSPR2

Spring
Hillsboro Side

6

LVWS

717230

4997814

+

7.48

479

9.9

0.027

B_LAYOUTSPRl

Spring2
Layout Spring

4

MVWS

712782

4997451

++

7.74

316

5.4

6.097

B_LAYOUT_dn

Layout Bottom

4

MVWS

712782

4997451

++

7.74

316

8.0

6.097

B_LCKHOSSPRl

Lockhart

19

STCS

716942

5001986

.

6.98

1260

10.0

0.308

B_LCKHOS_Run

Springhouse
Lockhart Spring

19

STCS

716942

5001986

+

6.98

1260

12.0

0.308

B_LCKHOS_Run2

run

Lockhart spring

run2

19

STCS

716942

5001986

+

6.98

1260

13.0

0.308

B_LCKSOSPRl

Lockhart South

18

STCS

716744

5001901

+

6.88

1445

10.0

0.008

B_LOCKPNDSPl

Spring
Lockhart

17

WPSS

716456

5001682

7.18

2383

10.7

0.040

B_MASLOVSPRl

Stockpond
Mason-Lovell

1

WPSS

724616

4967924

6.88

1514

15.5

0.013

B_NDAVISPR1

Spring

N Davis Spring

21

STCS

716466

5002406

_ _

7.13

1746

10.3

0.015

B_PENTAGSPR1

Pentagon Spring

15

WPSS

714074

4998991

-

6.77

433

8.8

na

B_PICKETSPR1

Pickett's Wall

10

LVWS

717541

4998619

+

6.89

875

8.7

na

B_PICKETS_run

Seep

Pickett's Wall_
runout

10

LVWS

717541

4998619

+

7.20

875

12.0

na

B_RICKSSPR1

Rick's Spring

20

STCS

716910

5002153

+

6.66

1195

11.5

0.150

B_SORENSPRl

Sorenson spring

3

STCS

715222

4995906

-

7.58

427

9.4

4.410

B_TRCPGDSPR1

Trail Creek CG-
Main

27

MVWS

718131

4998500

++

6.86

1844

10.8

0.660

B_TRCPGDSPR2

Trail Creek CG

2

Tyler's Torrent

28

LVWS

718131

4998517

+

6.72

1286

9.5

0.230

B_TYLTORSPRl

8

STCS

717473

4998020

+

6.94

1105

9.4

0.238

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 6 of 18

Stagliano

Figure 2. Location (A), classification (B) and biointegrity (C) of sampled BICA springs with magnification of MT spring sites; only one
spring was sampled in WY (Mason-Lovell, Spr #l-white circle). Spring number, biointegrity rankings and class types (LVWS, MVWS,
STCS, WPSS) are assigned and described in the text and in Table 3.

<\ Seeps and Springs

Stagliano

Table 3. Spring Habitat Types with representatives of differing ecological integrity classes.

BICA Spring
Classification

High Quality Ecological
Condition

Moderate Ecological
Condition

Impaired Ecological
Condition

Rheocrenes - directional flowing water springs & seeps that may flow into perennial or ephemeral streams.

1) Single Thread
Channel Springs
(STCS)

2) Low Volume
Wall Springs &
Seeps (LVWS)

3) Med-High
Volume Wall
Springs &
Seeps (MVWS)

Cass, Finley Spring (photo),
Lockhart Spring Run

Cattrack, Hidden, Rick's (photo),
Sorenson, Tyler's Torrent Spring

jBf'AkjL.

North Davis (photo),
Lockhart South Spring
Lockhart Springhouse

No representative of an
impaired wall spring

Pickett's Wall Spring

Trail Creek Camp #2 Spring
(Above), Hillsboro Side Spring

No representative of an
impaired wall spring

Layout Spring (above), Hillsboro
Main Spring

Trail Creek Campground Main
Spring

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 8 of 18

Stagliano

Table 3 (cont).

Non-Impaired

Slightly-Impaired

Impaired

BICA Spring
Classification
Limnocrenes - non-linear flowing spring water, lentic spring ecosystems that resemble small wetlands

1) Wetland /Ponded
Seep Springs
(WPSS)

Headgate Seep Spring

Bear (above) & Pentagon
Spring

Mason-Lovell Spring

2) Artificially
Created Wetland /
Ponded Springs
(WPSS)

No representative of an

un-impaired ponded

spring

KM

■ an

Sorenson Spring Pond Lockhart Stockpond

Aquatic Macroinvertebrate Community Results

Overall, 146 macroinvertebrate taxa were identified from 21 springs (26 samples) within the 4
habitat types. Diptera (true flies) were the richest order with 69 taxa, followed by Trichoptera
(caddisflies) and Coleoptera (beetles) with 19 taxa apiece (Appendix A). The most diverse site was
Layout Spring with 33 total taxa, and the most diverse spring class type is the Med-High Volume
Wall Spring (n=4) averaging 27 taxa per sample. Low Volume Wall Springs (n=4) and Single
Thread Channel Springs (n=l 1) had similar avg. richness at -20 taxa, while Wetland Seep Springs
(n=7) had significantly lower richness averaging -13 taxa. Twenty-four of the 26 samples were
processed completely (every invertebrate was picked), and in 20 of those cases, the minimum
number of organisms was still not reached (only 2 had to sub- sampled).

No species of concern, threatened or endangered invertebrate species were collected during the
surveys. Two introduced species were reported, the wide-ranging amphipod, Hyalella azteca

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 9 of 18

Stagliano

(Sorenson Spring), and the snail, Pseudosuccinea columella (Hidden, Pickett's & Sorenson Springs).
A number of cold-water, habitat-restricted, sensitive taxa (14 spp.) were found only at Layout Creek
spring (see table), with a few of those taxa found additionally at Hidden, Rick's, Pickett's Wall, Trail
Creek Campground Main and the runout of Lockhart Springs. Four free-living, predatory
caddisflies: Rhyacophila verrula (photo 3), R. oreta, R. brunnea gr. & R. rotunda were only found
together at Layout Spring (Inset Table).

• Ecologically-important spring indicator taxa
(Stagliano 2006), the stonefly-
Amphinemura banksi, the riffle beetle -
Optioservus quadrimaculatus and the
ma.yf\y-Baetis tricaudatus were reported
from 16 BICA spring sites, the tipulids
Dicranota and Tipula at 10 sites, the
diptera, Caloparyphus (7), the beetle,
Hydroporus (7), and the caddisfly,
Hesperophylax designatus at 6 sites (Table
3). Indicator taxa of ecologically "healthy"
springs at BICA, that were not reported
from NWGP springs, were the
Chironomidae Brillia; the riffle beetle,
Heterlimnius corpulentus; caddisfly-
Lepidostoma unicolor; and predatory
stonefly; Hesperoperla pacifica (photo 4)
found at 16, 14, 12 & 13 sites, respectively
(Table 3, Appendix I).

• Total taxa richness at a site was not a good
overall indicator of biointegrity. For
example Bear Spring run, Cattrack and
Finley's had low richness for a STCS (13-
15 taxa), but still reported good ecological
rankings. Conversely, Lockhart Stockpond,
Mason-Lovell and N. Davis Springs had 17
taxa, but were ecologically impaired.

Unique "Cool" Taxon

Layout

Other

Creek

BICA
Sites

Stoneflies

Malenka sp.

+

Paraperla cf. frontalis

+

Sweltsa sp.

+

Zapada oregonensis

+

Mayflies

+

Ameletus similior

Baetis bicaudatus

+

Caddisflies

Rhyacophila verrula

+

Rhyacophila oreta

+

+(3)

Rhyacophila brunnea gr.

+

+(1)

Rhyacophila rotunda

+

-

Homophylax

+

-

Neothremma alicia

+

-

True Flies

Boreochlus persimilis

-

+

Cardiocladius

+

+(2)

Paraphaenocladius

+

+(2)

Pagastia

+

-

Diplocladius

+

-

Eukiefferiella brehmi gr.

+

+(2)

E. devonica gr.

+

-

E. pseudomontana gr.

+

-

Krenosmittia

+

+(1)

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 10 of 18

Stagliano

Table 3. Indicator taxa of good to excellent
ecological integrity in NWGP and BICA rheocrene
perennial springs. (++) = highly significant indicator,
(+) = significant, (-) = not significant or not found in
spring ecosystem.

Indicator Taxon

NWGP

BICA

Stoneflies

Amphinemura banksi
Hesperoperla pacifica
Mayfly

Baetis tricaudatus

Caddisflies

Hesperophylax cf. designatus

++

++
++

++
++

++

+

Lepidostoma unicolor

-

++

Damselfly

Argia

Beetles

Optioservus

Heterlimnius corpulentus
Hydroporus
Oreodytes
Diptera (True Flies)

Brillia

Caloparyphus

Dicranota

Dixa

Euparyphus

Heleniella

Odontomesa

Ormosia

Pedicia

Parametriocnemus

Pseudodiamesa

Radotanypus

Tvetenia bavarica Gr.

Tipula

++

+
+

+
+
+

+
+
+
+

+
+

++
++

+

++

+
+
+
+

+
++

++

+

Results from the habitat and macroinvertebrate

• Lower taxa richness was recorded directly at the
spring orifice than in samples taken just a few
meters downstream (Pickett' s Wall, Trail Creek
Campground Main), and this is especially true of
modified springs (ex. Sorenson's, Lockhart
Springhouse). In addition, the runouts from
spring origins acquired additional taxa along an
increasing temperature and habitat gradient.
^Example: Bear Spring's (a slightly-impaired
WPSS) runout just 20m from the source gained

enough rheocrene indicator taxa to classify as
a non-impaired STCS (Table 4).

• Using MT DEQ's MMI, 15 of the 26 spring
samples sites were ranked non-impaired (good to
excellent biological integrity), 8 were slightly
impaired and 3 was severely impaired (Table 4).
There were numerous discrepancies between
biological community scores & ecological health.
^Example 1: Mason-Lovell is a silted, impaired
WPSS with low numbers of macroinvertebrates,
but ranked high with both MMI evaluations.
^Example 2: Hidden Spring is in good
ecological health, has high taxa richness

and # of BICA indicator species, but ranked
severely impaired by both MMI evaluations.
• Pickett' s Wall run and Layout Creek Spring
were the only samples to be ranked similarly by
all integrity measures. Without considering the
alternative MMI and NWGP taxa (Table 4), the
sites with the highest ranking agreements are:
Bear_run, Cass, Headgate, Hillsboro Main and
Side Springs, Layout (both), Trail Creek
Campground Main and #2 Springs,
surveys combined to rank the following sites:

Overall BICA Perennial Spring Aquatic Ecological System Condition and Biological Integrity (in
order of highest integrity to worst by spring class type):

1) Med-High Volume Wall Springs (MVWS)-l) Layout Creek, 2) Trail Creek Campground
Main and 3) Hillsboro Main Spring.

2) Low Volume Wall Springs (LVWS)-l) Pickett's Wall Spring + run, 2) Trail Creek
Campground #2, 3) Hillsboro Side Spring.

3) Single Thread Channel Springs (STCS)- 1) Cass, 2) Finley 3) Rick's 4) Lockhart
Spring Run, 5) Hidden, 6) Cattrack 7) Sorenson, 8) Tyler's Torrent, 9) Lockhart South
10) Lockhart Springhouse, 11) North Davis Spring

4) Wetland / Ponded Springs (WPSS)-l) Headgate Seep, 2) Bear, 3) Pentagon 4) Mason-
Lovell Spring, 5) Lockhart Pond Spring

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 11 of 18

Stagliano

Table 4. Aquatic integrity ranking of all inventoried sites. Total number of invertebrates, total taxa
richness (T_Taxa), LVAL and Alternative (MTN or Plains) MMI scores and expected aquatic
communities assessed against similarly classified reference sites (Observed/ Expected). (++) = high
biological integrity, (+) = good integrity, (-) = slightly impaired, (--) = moderate to severely impaired
biological community. Shaded-cells represent good to excellent scores above set thresholds.

StationID

Spr

#

Total
Ind.

T Taxa

LVAL

MMI

Score

MMI
Rank

Alt.

MMI

Score

Alt.
MMI
Rank

#

NWGP

spring

taxa

% ref.

spring

taxa

#

BICA

ID

taxa

%

BICA

spring

taxa

B_BEARSPR_run

B_BEARSPR1 (L)

B_CASS_SPR1

B_CATTRKSPR1

B_FINLEYSPR1

B_HDGTSEEP1(L)

BJHIDDENSPR1

BJHLSBMNSPR1

BJHLSBSDSPR2

B_LAYOUT_LOW

BJ.AYOUTSPR1

B_LCKHOS_Run

B_LCKHOS_Run2

BJ.CKHOSSPR1

BJ.CKSOSPR1

BJ.OCKPNDSP

B_MASLOVSP (L)

B_NDAVISPR

B_PENTAGSP (L)

B_PICKETS_run

B_PICKETSPR1

B_RICKSSPR1

B_SORENSPR1

B_TRCPGDSPR1

B_TRCPGDSPR2

B TYLTORSPR1

22
22
33
13
29
24

7
6
4
4
19
19
19
18
17
1

21
15
10
10
20
3

27
28
8

106
64
186
183
175
386
80
123
210
154
272
150
161
23
297
207
96
106
40
146
31
388
256
261
345
357

13
11

49.8
56.2

+
+

53.9

+

3
3
5
4
5
6
4
5
5
5
6
5
5

3

2
3
3

18.8
18.8
31.3
23.5
31.3
35.3
25.0
31.3
31.3
31.3
37.5
31.3
31.3
0.0
18.8
0.0
11.8
18.8
18.8

7

41.2

31.9
48.6
49.6
40.4
38.3
26.5
48.7
37.9

-

0.0

24

56.9

+

11

64.7

15
15
24
26
24
22
24
33

80.0
57.5
66.3

++

+
++

5

29.4

7
7
7
10
10
8

41.2
41.2
41.2
58.8
58.8
47.1

28.2

—

65.2
49.8
83.0

+
+
++

61.4
63.9

+
++

68.1

+

7
9
9

41.2
52.9
52.9

18
20

6

17
13
17
17
7

19.7
32.6
33.5
19.7
34.5

-

21.9
28.3
4.6
21.7
19.6

--

0.0

10

58.8

1
2
2
2

5.9
11.8
11.8
11.8

76.5

++

69.5

++

49.4
36.4

+

31.1
15.1

-

24
8

47.2
57.2

+
+

53.5

+

7

43.8

10

58.8

35.2
31.1
30.9
46.5
43.2
42.1

-

4

25.0

4

23.5

29
21
27
25

34.8
37.8

-

9

56.3

9

52.9

4
6
6
4

25.0
37.5
37.5
25.0

4

23.5

56.4
51.0

+

14
14

82.4
82.4

17

33.2

-

6

35.3

Discussion

Although we did not discover any new species during our initial BICA spring surveys, the potential
for documenting additional macroinvertebrate taxa in these systems certainly exists. Many of these
aquatic insects can only be taxonomically identified to species with adult male specimens. Thus,
without collecting adults which can be time consuming and labor intensive, we may never know if a
"new species to science" dwells within the spring ecosystems of BICA. It is very likely that
intensive surveys over multiple seasons could conceivably double our 146 aquatic taxa list.
Although in a study that intensively collected invertebrates from 28 springs in the Great Basin, a
total of 141 taxa were documented, 58 of these were caddisfly species (Myers and Resh 2002). We
identified almost 3 times the number of Diptera (true fly) taxa than that study, but only 19 caddisfly
species. Further, faunal responses to environmental gradients tend to be individualistic and taxon-
specific, and since we have identified multiple taxa to the genus-level, species shifts from one spring
to the next would occur without detection. Springs and wetlands in arid landscapes are characterized

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 12 of 18

Stagliano

by isolation and unpredictable colonization events — BICA springs may be in close enough proximity
to mountain stream taxa (Pryors and Bighorns) to allow population connectivity and genetic flow
preventing speciation events. During this study, we have documented important sources of aquatic
biodiversity within this arid recreation area, and sampled those using protocols that are repeatable
and scientifically credible for park resource managers to implement in long-term monitoring
programs. Given limited funding and time, we did not get a chance to analyze water chemistry
parameters and macroinvertebrate community structure. Spring permanence, discharge and
disturbance are the primary diversity drivers in most spring ecosystems, but further discriminant
analysis has indicated even small changes in temperature, conductivity, alkalinity, and elevation
were responsible for further explanation of species composition structure across spring ecosystems
(Myers and Resh 2002). The widest variation of the water chemistry parameters in BICA was
conductivity (182-2343 us/sec), and in some cases this was correlated with low-flow, impacted
ponded areas (Lockhart Pond Spring and Mason-Lovell), but in others, high values were more
related to subsurface geology (Trail Creek Campground Springs). How naturally high levels of ions
in BICA springs effects macroinvertebrate communities is worth further study.

Conclusions & Recommendations

Spring macroinvertebrate diversity and richness in BICA is positively related to discharge (water
flow) and negatively related to anthropogenic factors (spring diversions, orifice manipulations,
stream habitat degradation). Wall springs were least likely to be human-impacted due to there
position in the landscape. Medium-high volume wall springs had the highest macroinvertebrate
diversity and biointegrity, and taxa richness decreased down the gradient with single thread channel
springs, until the lowest diversity was recorded at impaired low flow wetland springs.

• In terms of monitoring BICA spring macroinvertebrate communities: 10 composite dipnet
samples per site often did not collect the minimum number of organisms (300) for the MMI
metrics. Low numbers of macroinvertebrates are known to cause discrepancies with MMI
scores (Feldman, pers. comm). Replicate samples within a spring reach could be added to
obtain more organisms, but this will increase field and lab processing time and costs.

• The DEQ Low Mountain/Valley MMI performed fairly well at determining biological
integrity of rheocrenes, although limnocrene spring-types and low invertebrate numbers in
the samples seemed to affect it's detection capabilities significantly (Mason-Lovell & Bear
Spring were over-ranked, while Lockhart South and Hidden Spring were under-ranked).

• Expected reference condition indicator species for spring macroinvertebrate communities
that were derived from springs in the Northwestern Great Plains (NWGP) did not perform
well in distinguishing ecological integrity of BICA springs, therefore, we derived a new set
of indicator species reflecting reference condition rheocrene spring conditions.

• Good to excellent macroinvertebrate community integrity of rheocrene springs had at least 7
of the 17 BICA Indicator Species present, and usually more than 20 total taxa. For
limnocrene (WPSS) biointegrity, the LVAL MMI usually over-valued their condition.

• Significant anthropogenic factors (i.e. water diversions, improper grazing practices) still exist
and historic or current agricultural activities (e.g. Lockhart, Ewing-Snell Ranches) are
continuing to threaten biological integrity of numerous springs in BICA. The easiest
recommendation to make is to maintain adequate cattle fencing around these sensitive
riparian spring areas. Springs undergoing riparian protection measures (i.e. fencing,
revegetation) can be monitored for water and biological quality improvements on a yearly or
multiple-year basis, until habitat quality and biointegrity trends start to improve.

31 March 2008 Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs Stagliano

Page 13 of 18

REFERENCES

Arsuffi, Thomas L. 1993. Status of the Comal Springs Riffle Beetle (Heterelmis comalensis), Peck's Cave

Amphipod (Stygobromus pecki Holsinger), and the Comal Springs Dryopid Beetle (Stygoparnus

comalensis Barr and Spangler). Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Erman NA. 1998. Invertebrate richness and trichoptera phenology in Sierra Nevada (California,USA) cold

springs: Sources of variation. Studies in crenobiology: The biology of springs and springbrooks.

Netherlands: Backhuys. p 95-108.
Erman NA. 2002. Lessons from a long-term study of springs and spring invertebrates (Sierra Nevada,

California, USA) and implications for conservation and management. In: Sada DW,Sharpe SE,

editors; 2002; Las Vegas, NV.
Feldman, D. 2006. Interpretation of New Macroinvertebrate Models by WQPB. Draft Report. Montana

Department of Environmental Quality, Planning Prevention and Assistance Division, Water Quality

Planning Bureau, WQS Section Helena, MT 59620. 14 pp.
Heidel, B and W. Fertig. 2000. Rare plants of Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Report to National

Fish and Wildlife Foundation and Bighorn Canyon National Recreation Area. Montana Natural

Heritage Program, Helena, and Wyoming Natural Diversity Database, Laramie. 66 p.
Heino J, Muotka T, Mykra H, Paavola R, Hamalainen H, Koskenniemi E. 2003. Defining macroinvertebrate

assemblage types of headwater springs: implications for bioassessment and conservation. Ecological

Applications 13:842-852.
Hershler R and Sada DW. 2002. Biogeography of Great Basin aquatic snails of the genus Pyrgulopsis.

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 33:255-276.
MTDEQ. 2005. Sample Collection, Sorting, and Taxonomic Identification of Benthic Macroinvertebrates.

Montana Department of Environmental Quality Water Quality Planning Bureau Standard Operating

Procedure WQPBWQM-009. April 2005.
Myers, M. 1995. Aquatic Insects in the Springs of the Great Basin. Department of Environmental Science,

Policy and Management, UC Berkeley.
Myers, M and V. Resh 2002. Trichoptera and other macroinvertebrates in springs of the Great Basin: Species

composition, richness, and distribution. Western N. Am. Nat. Vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 1-13.
Perla B, Stevens LE. 2003. Biodiversity and productivity as an undisturbed spring in comparison with

adjacent grazed riparian and upland habitats. In: Stevens LE, Meretsky VJ, editors. Every last drop:

Ecology and conservation of springs ecosystems. Flagstaff, AZ: University of Arizona Press, p in

press.
Sada DW, Fleishman E, Murphy DD. 2005. Associations among spring-dependent aquatic assemblages and

environmental and land use gradients in a Mojave Desert mountain range. Diversity and

Distrubutions 11:91-99.
Sada DW, Vinyard GL. 2002. Anthropogenic changes in biogeography of Great Basin aquatic biota.

Smithsonian Contributions to the Earth Sciences 33:277-293.
Sada DW, Williams JE, Silvey JC, Halford A, Ramakka J, Summers P, Lewis L. 2001. A guide to managing,

restoring, and conserving springs in the Western United States. Denver: Bureau of Land Mangement.

Report nr 1737-17. 70 p.
Shepard WD. 1993. Desert springs-both rare and endangered. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater

Ecosystems 3(4):351-359.
Stagliano, D.M., B.A. Maxell, and S.A. Mincemoyer. 2006. A Multi-Discipline Integrative

Assessment of Lotic Spring Sites in the Custer National Forest (Ashland Ranger District)

http://nhp.nris.state.mt.us/Reports/Custer_Forest_Project_2006.pdf
Thompson B.C., Matusik-Rowan P.L., Boykin K.G. 2002. Prioritizing conservation potential of arid-land

montane natural springs and associated riparian areas. Journal of Arid Environments 50(4):527-547.
Woods, A.J., Omernik, J.M., Nesser, J.A., Shelden, J., Comstock, J.A., Azevedo,

S.H., 2002, Ecoregions of Montana, 2nd edition.

31 March 2008 Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs Stagliano

Page 14 of 18

Appendix A. Macroinvertebrate Species List for all BICA samples. Number of samples the taxon
occurred (# of S) and the Frequency of Occurrence (F of O). Grey Shaded =Rheocrene Indicator taxa,
Underlined = Coldwater Dependent taxa , Red Shaded are introduced species.

Order

Family

Final Taxa ID

#ofS

% Fof

Beetles

Coleoptera

Dryopidae

Helichus lithophilus

2

7.7

Coleoptera

Dytiscidae

Agabus

4

15.4

Coleoptera

Dytiscidae

Coptotomus longulus

1

3.8

Coleoptera

Dytiscidae

Hydroporus

7

26.9

Coleoptera

Dytiscidae

Laccophilus

1

3.8

Coleoptera

Elmidae

Cleptelmis addenda

2

7.7

Coleoptera

Flmidae

Heterlimnius corpulentus

12

46.2

Coleoptera

Elmidae

Microcylloepus pusillus

1

3.8

Coleoptera

Elmidae

Narpus concolor

3

11.5

Coleoptera

Flmidae

Optioservus sp.

3

11.5

Coleoptera

Flmidae

Optioservus quadrimaculatus

16

61.5

Coleoptera

Elmidae

Ordobrevia nubifera

2

7.7

Coleoptera

Haliplidae

Haliplus

2

7.7

Coleoptera

Haliplidae

Peltodytes

1

3.8

Coleoptera

Hydraenidae

Hydraena

1

3.8

Coleoptera

Hydrophilidae

Hydrobius

7

26.9

Coleoptera

Hydrophilidae

Laccobius

1

3.8

Coleoptera

Hydrophilidae

Paracymus

1

3.8

Coleoptera

Hydrophilidae

Tropisternus lateralis

1

3.8

True Flies

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

Bezzia/Palpomyia

3

11.5

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

Ceratopogon

2

7.7

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

Culicoides

4

15.4

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

Dasyhelea

1

3.8

Diptera

Ceratopogonidae

Probezzia

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Boreochlus persimilus

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Brillia

14

53.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Cardiocladius

5

19.2

Diptera

Chironomidae

Chaetocladius

5

19.2

Diptera

Chironomidae

Corynoneura

3

11.5

Diptera

Chironomidae

Cricotopus

7

26.9

Diptera

Chironomidae

Cricotopus bicinctus Gr.

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Cryptochironomus

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Diamesa

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Dicrotendipes

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Diplocladius

1

3JJ

Diptera

Chironomidae

Doithrix

1

3J$

Diptera

Chironomidae

Eukiefferiella

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Eukiefferiella Brehmi Gr.

2

H

Diptera

Chironomidae

Eukiefferiella Devonica Gr.

1

3JJ

Diptera

Chironomidae

Eukiefferiella Pseudomontana Gr.

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Heleniella

3

11.5

Diptera

Chironomidae

Hydrobaenus

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Krenosmittia

2

H

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Sprii

igs

St

Page 15 of 18

Stagliano

Appendix A (cont).

Diptera

Chironomidae

Limnophyes

5

19.2

Diptera

Chironomidae

Macropelopia

4

15.4

Diptera

Chironomidae

Metriocnemus

4

15.4

Diptera

Chironomidae

Micropsectra

15

57.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Odontomesa

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Orthocladius

4

15.4

Diptera

Chironomidae

Pagastia

1

3JJ

Diptera

Chironomidae

Parachironomus

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Parakiefferiella

5

19.2

Diptera

Chironomidae

Paralauterborniella nigrohalteris

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Parametriocnemus

9

34.6

Diptera

Chironomidae

Paraphaenocladius

3

11.5

Diptera

Chironomidae

Polypedilum

3

11.5

Diptera

Chironomidae

Procladius

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Psectrocladius

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Pseudochironomus

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Pseudodiamesa

4

15.4

Diptera

Chironomidae

Psilometriocnemus

6

23.1

Diptera

Chironomidae

Radotanypus

2

7.7

Diptera

Chironomidae

Tanytarsus

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Thienemanniella

4

15.4

Diptera

Chironomidae

Thienemannimyia Gr.

1

3.8

Diptera

Chironomidae

Tvetenia Bavarica Gr.

12

46.2

Diptera

Chironomidae

Tvetenia vitracies Gr.

1

3.8

Diptera

Dixidae

Dixa

6

23.1

Diptera

Dolichopodidae

Dolichopodidae

1

3.8

Diptera

Empididae

Clinocera

3

11.5

Diptera

Empididae

Hemerodromia

3

11.5

Diptera

Psychodidae

Pericoma

1

3.8

Diptera

Ptychopteridae

Ptychoptera

1

3.8

Diptera

Stratiomyidae

Stratiomyia

1

3.8

Diptera

Stratiomyidae

Caloparyphus

7

26.9

Diptera

Stratiomyidae

Euparyphus

6

23.1

Diptera

Tabanidae

Chrysops

2

7.7

Diptera

Tabanidae

Tabanus

1

3.8

Diptera

Tipulidae

Dactylabis

1

3.8

Diptera

Tipulidae

Dicranota

8

30.8

Diptera

Tipulidae

Gonomyia

2

7.7

Diptera

Tipulidae

Hexatoma

1

3.8

Diptera

Tipulidae

Limnophila

1

3.8

Diptera

Tipulidae

Limonia

4

15.4

Diptera

Tipulidae

Limonia (Dicronomyia)

1

3.8

Diptera

Tipulidae

Ormosia

3

11.5

Diptera

Tipulidae

Ormosia (Scleroprocta)

1

3JJ

Diptera

Tipulidae

Tipula

10

38.5

Mayflies

Ephemeroptera

Ameletidae

Ameletus simiilor

1

3JJ

Ephemeroptera

Baetidae

Baetis bicaudatus

1

3JJ

Ephemeroptera

Baetidae

Baetis tricaudatus

16

61.5

Ephemeroptera

Baetidae

Callibaetis ferrugineus

1

3.8

Ephemeroptera

Baetidae

Callibaetis fluctuans

1

3.8

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 16 of 18

Stagliano

Appendix A (cont).

Ephemeroptera

Baetidae

Diphetor hageni

3

11.5

Dragonflies/Damselflies

Odonata

Aeshnidae

Aeshna

1

3.8

Odonata

Aeshnidae

Aeshna umbrosa

1

3.8

Odonata

Coenagrionidae

Argia

2

7.7

Odonata

Coenagrionidae

Amphiagrion abbreviatum

1

3.8

Odonata

Coenagrionidae

Coenagrion/Enallagma

1

3.8

Stoneflies

Plecoptera

Chloroperlidae

Sweltsa

2

7.7

Plecoptera

Chloroperlidae

Paraperla cf. frontalis

1

3JJ

Plecoptera

Nemouridae

Amphinemura banksi

16

61.5

Plecoptera

Nemouridae

Malenka

6

23.1

Plecoptera

Nemouridae

Zapada oregonensis

1

3JJ

Plecoptera

Perlidae

Hesperoperla pacifica

13

50.0

Plecoptera

Perlodidae

Perlodidae

1

3.8

Caddis/lies

Trichoptera

Hydropsychidae

Hydropsyche californica

2

7.7

Trichoptera

Hydropsychidae

Hydropsyche confusa

6

23.1

Trichoptera

Hydropsychidae

Hydropsyche morosa gr.

3

11.5

Trichoptera

Hydroptilidae

Ochrotrichia

6

23.1

Trichoptera

Hydroptilidae

Hydroptila

1

3.8

Trichoptera

Lepidostomatidae

Lepidostoma

2

7.7

Trichoptera

Lepidostomatidae

Lepidostoma pluviale

3

11.5

Trichoptera

Lepidostomatidae

Lepidostoma unicolor

12

46.2

Trichoptera

Limnephilidae

Hesperophylax designatus

6

23.1

Trichoptera

Limnephilidae

Homophylax

1

3JJ

Trichoptera

Limnephilidae

Limnephilus

5

19.2

Trichoptera

Limnephilidae

Nemotaulius hostilis

1

3.8

Trichoptera

Philopotamidae

Dolophilodes

1

3.8

Trichoptera

Rhyacophilidae

Rhyacophila Brunnea Gr.

3

11.5

Trichoptera

Rhyacophilidae

Rhyacophila oreta

3

11.5

Trichoptera

Rhyacophilidae

Rhyacophila rotunda

2

12

Trichoptera

Rhyacophilidae

Rhyacophila verrula

2

12

Trichoptera

Uenoidae

Neothremma alicia

2

12

Peaclams

Veneroida

Pisidiidae

Sphaerium

4

15.4

Veneroida

Pisidiidae

Pisidium casertanum

1

3.8

Snails

B asommatophor a

Lymnaeidae

Fossaria humilis

4

15.4

Basommatophora

Lymnaeidae

Fossaria obrussa

2

7.7

B asommatophor a

Lymnaeidae

Lymnaea stagnalis

1

3.8

Basommatophora Lymnaeidae Pseudosuccinea columella 3 11.5

B asommatophor a

Physidae

Physella

19

73.1

Basommatophora

Physidae

Physella zionensis

1

3.8

Heterostropha

Planorbidae

Planorbula campestris

3

11.5

Heterostropha

Valvatidae

Valvata sincera

5

19.2

Heterostropha

Valvatidae

Valvata lewisi

9

34.6

Non-Insect Oligochaeta Worms 1 Flatworms

Turbellaria

Polycelis coronata

4

15.4

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 17 of 18

Stagliano

Appendix A (cont).

Turbellaria

Nematoda

Haplotaxida

Haplotaxida

Lumbriculida

Crustacea

Lumbricidae

Tubificidae

Lumbriculidae

Turbellaria

Nematoda

Lumbricina

Tubificidae

Lumbriculidae

1

3.8

2

7.7

1

3.8

1

3.8

2

7.7

Ostracoda
Mites

Trombidiformes
Trombidiformes
Trombidiformes

Hygrobatidae
Hygrobatidae
Limnocharidae

Ostracoda

Tyrellia

Hygrobates

Rhyncholimnochares

15.4

1

3.8

1

3.8

1

3.8

31 March 2008

Aquatic Invertebrate Surveys of BICA Seeps and Springs
Page 18 of 18

Stagliano